20 Billion Contest: Did Larry Holmes Fight At A High Level Post-Tyson?

[poet682006]

How many times have you heard someone claim "Larry Holmes when on to fight at a high level for 10 years after the Tyson fight"? Usually this is used by Tyson KoolAid drinkers to boost their boy's reputation by making his win over Holmes seem like some great accomplishment. The problem is the claim is entirely bogus. Larry did NOT fight at a "high level" for 10 years after the Tyson fight.

Larry Holmes fought 3.....3 fights against top Heavies post-Tyson and lost two of them (NO, Brian Nielson was NOT a top Heavy.....and Larry lost to him too). The rest of his post-Tyson lineup consisted of the likes of Tim Anderson, Bigfoot Martin, Ken Lakusta and about a dozen others just like them. Come on, these are the types of fighters who routinely show up on the ESPN/USA cable cards as "opponents" that get fed to prospects. Guys that are paid to lose and make the prospect look good. This is the type of competition that any fighter with an ounce of talent should be able to beat on their death beds. This is fighting at a "high level"?

So where does this myth of fighting at a "high level" come from? Getting the snot beat out of him by Evander Holyfield? A fight where Evander was NEVER in any danger of losing? Or maybe it's the close decision loss to notorious head-case Oliver McCall (a fighter whose sole claim to being a top Heavy was based on one fluke win over Lennox Lewis)? No. What it comes down to was his win over Ray Mercer.

The same Ray Mercer who was as up and down in his performances as the proverbial yo-yo. The same Ray Mercer who in mid-fight tried to bribe Jesse Ferguson into taking a dive because Ferguson was kicking Mercer's ass.....Jesse Ferguson ffs. Ray Mercer who against Holmes fought the dumbest fight I've ever seen a top-contender fight. I'm sorry but that was not a fight Holmes would have won if Mercer had fought with even a modicum of intelligence. Mercer may have been known for being a mental lightweight but it's hardly indicative of fighting at a "high level" to snag a decision against someone who's having a 12 round brain-fart.

Holmes' Post Tyson Resume:

1991 Tim Anderson 25-13-0 W
1991 Eddie Gonzales 26-13-1 W
1991 Michael Greer 42-11-3 W
1991 Art Card 9- 3-0 W
1991 Jamie Howe 15-13-1 W
1992 Ray Mercer 18- 0-0 W
1992 Evander Holyfield 27- 0-0 L
1993 Everett Martin 18-15-1 W
1993 Rocky Pepeli 16- 6-1 W
1993 Ken Lakusta 21-19-1 W
1993 Paul Poirier 31- 2-0 W
1993 Jose Ribalta 32- 9-1 W
1994 Garing Lane 11-10-1 W
1994 Jesse Ferguson 20-12-0 W
1995 Oliver McCall 25- 5-0 L
1995 Ed Donaldson 11- 4-0 W
1996 Curtis Shepard 14- 2-0 W
1996 Quinn Navarre 17- 3-1 W
1996 Anthony Willis 15- 4-0 W
1997 Brian Nielsen 31- 0-0 L
1997 Maurice Harris 9- 8-2 W
1999 James Smith 44-16-1 W
2000 Mike Weaver 41-17-1 W
2002 Butterbean 65- 2-3 W

This is the resume of someone who's "fighting at a high level"? Sorry, but NO-SALE. That argument just doesn't fly.

Poet

[joseph5620]

Originally Posted by poet682006

How many times have you heard someone claim "Larry Holmes when on to fight at a high level for 10 years after the Tyson fight"? Usually this is used by Tyson KoolAid drinkers to boost their boy's reputation by making his win over Holmes seem like some great accomplishment. The problem is the claim is entirely bogus. Larry did NOT fight at a "high level" for 10 years after the Tyson fight.

Larry Holmes fought 3.....3 fights against top Heavies post-Tyson and lost two of them (NO, Brian Nielson was NOT a top Heavy.....and Larry lost to him too). The rest of his post-Tyson lineup consisted of the likes of Tim Anderson, Bigfoot Martin, Ken Lakusta and about a dozen others just like them. Come on, these are the types of fighters who routinely show up on the ESPN/USA cable cards as "opponents" that get fed to prospects. Guys that are paid to lose and make the prospect look good. This is the type of competition that any fighter with an ounce of talent should be able to beat on their death beds. This is fighting at a "high level"?

So where does this myth of fighting at a "high level" come from? Getting the snot beat out of him by Evander Holyfield? A fight where Evander was NEVER in any danger of losing? Or maybe it's the close decision loss to notorious head-case Oliver McCall (a fighter whose sole claim to being a top Heavy was based on one fluke win over Lennox Lewis)? No. What it comes down to was his win over Ray Mercer.

The same Ray Mercer who was as up and down in his performances as the proverbial yo-yo. The same Ray Mercer who in mid-fight tried to bribe Jesse Ferguson into taking a dive because Ferguson was kicking Mercer's ass.....Jesse Ferguson ffs. Ray Mercer who against Holmes fought the dumbest fight I've ever seen a top-contender fight. I'm sorry but that was not a fight Holmes would have won if Mercer had fought with even a modicum of intelligence. Mercer may have been known for being a mental lightweight but it's hardly indicative of fighting at a "high level" to snag a decision against someone who's having a 12 round brain-fart.

Holmes' Post Tyson Resume:

1991 Tim Anderson 25-13-0 W
1991 Eddie Gonzales 26-13-1 W
1991 Michael Greer 42-11-3 W
1991 Art Card 9- 3-0 W
1991 Jamie Howe 15-13-1 W
1992 Ray Mercer 18- 0-0 W
1992 Evander Holyfield 27- 0-0 L
1993 Everett Martin 18-15-1 W
1993 Rocky Pepeli 16- 6-1 W
1993 Ken Lakusta 21-19-1 W
1993 Paul Poirier 31- 2-0 W
1993 Jose Ribalta 32- 9-1 W
1994 Garing Lane 11-10-1 W
1994 Jesse Ferguson 20-12-0 W
1995 Oliver McCall 25- 5-0 L
1995 Ed Donaldson 11- 4-0 W
1996 Curtis Shepard 14- 2-0 W
1996 Quinn Navarre 17- 3-1 W
1996 Anthony Willis 15- 4-0 W
1997 Brian Nielsen 31- 0-0 L
1997 Maurice Harris 9- 8-2 W
1999 James Smith 44-16-1 W
2000 Mike Weaver 41-17-1 W
2002 Butterbean 65- 2-3 W

This is the resume of someone who's "fighting at a high level"? Sorry, but NO-SALE. That argument just doesn't fly.

Poet

Definitely not at a high level. I don't see how anybody can make that claim.

[poet682006]

Originally Posted by joseph5620

Definitely not at a high level. I don't see how anybody can make that claim.

Usually the claim is made to "prove" Holmes was a great win for Tyson

Poet

[jabsRstiff]

He fought at a good level.....using his super high boxing IQ to pull out some nice wins and avoid KOs in other fights.

Tyson was the only person to demolish Holmes, but a real fight fan should not hang their hat on that.

[jabsRstiff]

Tyson himself knew it wasn't a great win, but really a "passing of the guard" victory.

[poet682006]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

Tyson himself knew it wasn't a great win, but really a "passing of the guard" victory.

Try telling that to Tyson's KoolAid drinkers.

Poet

[jabsRstiff]

Originally Posted by poet682006

Try telling that to Tyson's KoolAid drinkers.

Poet

Believe me, I know how painful it can be to deal with them.

But, put yourself in their shoes.....Imagine having a comic book hero view of someone, and then having him shown to be human? You too would be in a horrendous, life-long state of denial!

[poet682006]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

Believe me, I know how painful it can be to deal with them.

But, put yourself in their shoes.....Imagine having a comic book hero view of someone, and then having him shown to be human? You too would be in a horrendous, life-long state of denial!

THAT could be applied to ALL nuthuggers That's how the detritus that lurks in the primordial pools of NSB see their favorite fighters.....as comic book heros

Poet

[McGoorty]

Originally Posted by poet682006

How many times have you heard someone claim "Larry Holmes when on to fight at a high level for 10 years after the Tyson fight"? Usually this is used by Tyson KoolAid drinkers to boost their boy's reputation by making his win over Holmes seem like some great accomplishment. The problem is the claim is entirely bogus. Larry did NOT fight at a "high level" for 10 years after the Tyson fight.

Larry Holmes fought 3.....3 fights against top Heavies post-Tyson and lost two of them (NO, Brian Nielson was NOT a top Heavy.....and Larry lost to him too). The rest of his post-Tyson lineup consisted of the likes of Tim Anderson, Bigfoot Martin, Ken Lakusta and about a dozen others just like them. Come on, these are the types of fighters who routinely show up on the ESPN/USA cable cards as "opponents" that get fed to prospects. Guys that are paid to lose and make the prospect look good. This is the type of competition that any fighter with an ounce of talent should be able to beat on their death beds. This is fighting at a "high level"?

So where does this myth of fighting at a "high level" come from? Getting the snot beat out of him by Evander Holyfield? A fight where Evander was NEVER in any danger of losing? Or maybe it's the close decision loss to notorious head-case Oliver McCall (a fighter whose sole claim to being a top Heavy was based on one fluke win over Lennox Lewis)? No. What it comes down to was his win over Ray Mercer.

The same Ray Mercer who was as up and down in his performances as the proverbial yo-yo. The same Ray Mercer who in mid-fight tried to bribe Jesse Ferguson into taking a dive because Ferguson was kicking Mercer's ass.....Jesse Ferguson ffs. Ray Mercer who against Holmes fought the dumbest fight I've ever seen a top-contender fight. I'm sorry but that was not a fight Holmes would have won if Mercer had fought with even a modicum of intelligence. Mercer may have been known for being a mental lightweight but it's hardly indicative of fighting at a "high level" to snag a decision against someone who's having a 12 round brain-fart.

Holmes' Post Tyson Resume:

1991 Tim Anderson 25-13-0 W
1991 Eddie Gonzales 26-13-1 W
1991 Michael Greer 42-11-3 W
1991 Art Card 9- 3-0 W
1991 Jamie Howe 15-13-1 W
1992 Ray Mercer 18- 0-0 W
1992 Evander Holyfield 27- 0-0 L
1993 Everett Martin 18-15-1 W
1993 Rocky Pepeli 16- 6-1 W
1993 Ken Lakusta 21-19-1 W
1993 Paul Poirier 31- 2-0 W
1993 Jose Ribalta 32- 9-1 W
1994 Garing Lane 11-10-1 W
1994 Jesse Ferguson 20-12-0 W
1995 Oliver McCall 25- 5-0 L
1995 Ed Donaldson 11- 4-0 W
1996 Curtis Shepard 14- 2-0 W
1996 Quinn Navarre 17- 3-1 W
1996 Anthony Willis 15- 4-0 W
1997 Brian Nielsen 31- 0-0 L
1997 Maurice Harris 9- 8-2 W
1999 James Smith 44-16-1 W
2000 Mike Weaver 41-17-1 W
2002 Butterbean 65- 2-3 W

This is the resume of someone who's "fighting at a high level"? Sorry, but NO-SALE. That argument just doesn't fly.

Poet

Oh come on Poet ...... There's BUTTERBEAN isn't there ?????..... That's some serious competition for an over the hill old fart..... But seriously though, The Holmes that couldn't take Spinks was already past his prime...and the Holmes that fought Tyson was gone, but although gone, Larry was in there for a while, it was this fight that I saw the first tiny crack in Iron Mike's game..... the old man showed that in his prime he would have given Tyson a fight and a half. Larry was a chance of winning in that prime,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After that we have a few names but he lost those,.... I don't even want to contemplate Mercer !!...lol...lol.......... YES You are on the money Poet, the Junior Super Welterweight with a triple twist and pike Boxing Champion of Tacoma .

[Jeff Da Maori]

Fat, unmotivated Larry Holmes is the best win Tyson notched up I reckon.


In shape, focused Larry Holmes whips the snot out of Tyson in under 10 rounds in my opinion. He had the chin and the balls to withstand the early Tyson barrage, and would start to pick him apart with the jab before stopping him in the mid to late rounds.